I guess they wanted the patent for recognition. A sort of pat on the back. The government grants patents so I suppose they can grant themselves as many as they like if it makes them feel good. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Whit Diffie gave an interesting talk about intellectual priority and scholarly recognition at UCL over here a couple of years ago - of course the spooks don't get any outside their own fences, the poor little lambs... Ken Brown Tim May wrote:
At 2:23 PM +0300 10/12/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Bo Elkjaer wrote:
Note that the patent-application was filed in 1936. Obviously they were interested in keeping any info relating to the invention confidential. But theres no need for that anymore, given that the technology in the patent is completely obsolete by now.
So... How do you defend such a patent? How does this sort of thing mesh with the idea of patents as a reward for disclosure?
There is no defense of such patents. You are correct that patents are intended to encourage disclosure and yet protect inventors for some limited period.
(Not all of us even support patents. Namely, ideas are just ideas. Making it illegal for some to use ideas, which they may well have thought of on their own, is thought control. In a crypto anarchic society, patents will mostly be moot.)
Granting patents to work done in the 1930s is bizarre.
--Tim May